User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 79

  1. #51
    Wake, See, Sing, Dance Cellmold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    5,806

    Default

    I have to say personally I find Jung's description of Si quite apt for myself. But of course that is just me.
    'One of (Lucas) Cranach's masterpieces, discussed by (Joseph) Koerner, is in it's self-referentiality the perfect expression of left-hemisphere emptiness and a precursor of post-modernism. There is no longer anything to point to beyond, nothing Other, so it points pointlessly to itself.' - Iain McGilChrist

    Suppose a tree fell down, Pooh, when we were underneath it?"
    "Suppose it didn't," said Pooh, after careful thought.
    Piglet was comforted by this.
    - A.A. Milne.

  2. #52
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    As you know, I didn't say anything about Thomson "not resembling Jung" in any overall sense. I said her description of IS_Js (specifically) — parts of which I quoted — bears little resemblance to Jung's portrait of those poor "reality-alienated" Si-doms whose "unpredictable and arbitrary" grip on the facts, combined with their characteristic inability to either make themselves understood or understand themselves, tends to render them (from the standpoint of practical contributions) among the "most useless of men."

    And, as I assume you also know, there's really no good faith case to be made to the contrary.

    As for Beebe: I never mentioned Beebe. Based on my admittedly limited exposure to his writings, I'd say life is too short to spend time reading Beebe.
    They are reality alienated because of being subjective perceiving dominant introverts. JTG used to say to me that it annoyed him when I talked about new roads because he had already a clear idea of his own road.

    I suggest you spend time with an intelligent SJ who also happens to have reasonably high verbal skills, so they can explain to you why their sensory reality is subjective. As if it's not plainly obvious from all those SJs who won't eat rice because they grew up eating potatoes.

    Im done with you. You are simply not understanding Si. Most of the introverted functions are difficult to grasp, but none so much with the bias against it as Si.

    EDIT: Don't take the rice example literally to apply to all SJs....its a symbol of shutting out objective sensory reality versus recreation of subjective sensory experience.

  3. #53
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    559

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmotini View Post
    Im done with you.
    Well, as a parting gift, I can't resist linking you to this somewhat lengthy INTJforum post explaining why I'm a "dichotomies guy."

    Links in INTJforum posts don't work if you're not a member, so here are replacements for the two links in that post:


    You have nothing to lose but your type dynamics!

  4. #54
    Senior Member PimpinMcBoltage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    157

    Default

    So being a Si dom is about being a stoner, but without the weed. Fits ISxP descriptions pretty well.
    Phelgmatic-Jewish-Communist-Islamic-Transethnic-Asexual-National Socialist

  5. #55
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PimpinMcBoltage View Post
    So being a Si dom is about being a stoner, but without the weed. Fits ISxP descriptions pretty well.
    Um no. Some one who makes the too high a little lower and the too low a little higher is more anal retentive than stoner.

    My fondest wish is that people who claim to be interested in personality theory would at least pretend to have actually read Jung.

  6. #56
    brainheart
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmotini View Post
    We are just going to see a parade of people claiming she is INFP, despite her clear worship of order and promptness and early responsibility, because, well, people here in outrageous numbers think everyone on the internet who feels different or rejected is clearly an N.

    I sat and watched numerous people call JTG ENTP and ISTP because they just couldn't fathom a vengeful ISxJ with a sense of humor, despite his clear preference for Si,both to himself, to me and even to Lexicon and Giggly.
    It's interesting because the ISXJs I've known are some of the quirkiest people out there. I can definitely see how they would often feel different or rejected.

  7. #57
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brainheart View Post
    It's interesting because the ISXJs I've known are some of the quirkiest people out there. I can definitely see how they would often feel different or rejected.
    Yes.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  8. #58
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,028

    Default

    I like ISxJs.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  9. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reckful View Post
    @lume

    In developing the Myers-Briggs typology, Myers departed from Jung in many ways, both large and small, and it's pretty common to encounter internet forum posters with the perspective that the MBTI, to the extent that it departs from Jung, mostly represents an oversimplified dumbing-down of Jung and/or a misunderstanding of Jung. But I'm here to tell you that the MBTI owes much of its spectacular success to the fact that the great majority of Briggs' and Myers' additions, corrections and other changes were improvements — including appropriate expansions — to Jung's original conceptions of the types.

    In any case, there's no denying that one of the results of Myers' changes to Jung is that each of her 16 type descriptions differs (to varying degrees) from Jung's description of the cognitive function (and function-dom) that purportedly corresponds to that type. And if I wanted to pick a single cognitive function where Myers' conception of the corresponding types departed the most from Jung, I'm pretty sure I'd pick introverted sensation.

    As Jung saw it — as you may know if you followed @Marmotini's or @brainheart's links – Si-doms were awkward, touchy eccentrics, detached from reality, who inhabited "a mythological world, where men, animals, railways, houses, rivers, and mountains appear partly as benevolent deities and partly as malevolent demons." Not only does Jung's portrait bear little resemblance to a typical IS_J, I think anyone not inclined to treat Jung with too much reverence would have to agree that Jung's portrait bears little resemblance to any significantly numerous group of normal-range people who've ever walked the face of the earth.

    In describing what he referred to as "the reality-alienating subjectivity of this type," Jung said that an Si-dom "has an illusory conception of reality," and that the relation between the actual physical world and the Si-dom's perceptions of it is "unpredictable and arbitrary." Both because of that and because, in Jung's view, the Si-dom's thinking and feeling functions "are relatively unconscious and, if conscious at all, have at their disposal only the most necessary, banal, everyday means of expression," Jung said that not only is it typical for Si-doms to be unable to really communicate their views to the world in understandable ways — an Si-dom also typically "fares no better in understanding himself."

    Jung said the main hope for an Si-dom to be able to communicate his thoughts to others was through art — in which case, although others would then be able to get a better glimpse of the Si-dom's soul, it would also be "strikingly clear" how "irrational" the Si-dom's perspectives were — but, alas, Jung also noted that artistic Si-doms were the exception rather than the rule, with the result that, "as a rule, [the Si-dom] resigns himself to his isolation."

    Myers, as you may know, abandoned the vast majority of Jung's strange, collective-unconscious-dominated conception of what Si involved in creating her portraits of IS_Js — based on many years of typing and gathering correlational data with respect to thousands of subjects.

    Far from suffering from a "reality-alienating subjectivity" that caused their relation to the real world to be "unpredictable and arbitrary," Myers portrayed IS_Js as among the most down-to-earth and realistic of all the types. She called them the "most practical of the introvert types," and said "they have a complete, realistic, practical respect both for the facts and for whatever responsibilities these facts create. Sensing provides the facts, and after the introverts' characteristic pause for reflection, their judgment accepts the responsibilities."

    Far from being uncommunicative eccentrics who more grounded and productive people would be prone to view as (in Jung's words) "the most useless of men," Myers viewed IS_Js as having the kinds of personality characteristics that tend to make them model employees in many respects. To quote the brief capsule descriptions at the myersbriggs.org website:



    My parents are both IS_Js, and I've dealt with quite a few others, and I have to say I think Myers' take captures them far better than Jung's. And the thing is, not only am I far from alone in finding that Myers' (and Keirsey's) IS_J — and SJ — descriptions are more accurate (not to mention richer and more insightful) than Jung's, but the people who agree with me (on the accurate part at the least) include every reasonably well-known cognitive functions theorist I've ever read — including Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk.

    Lenore Thomson notes that Sensation gives all S-doms "an appreciation for objective facts and circumstances, as perceived by the senses, [and] excellent powers of observation"; and she says Si-doms "count on established facts and concrete results" and particularly excel at "accumulat[ing] information — names, dates, numbers, statistics, references, guidelines, and so forth," and that Si "prompts [them] to reconcile [their] new impressions with the ones [they've] already stored." She also notes that Si-doms "consider it a point of honor to discharge their responsibilities, to be on time, and to keep their word"; and are "reassured by a defined place in a larger group." They "make it their business to know how things are supposed to work ... and they're concerned that others take these operating standards seriously as well." So Thomson's Si-doms are basically Myers' IS_Js, not Jung's Si-doms.

    Linda Berens (who also makes use of Keirsey's SJ descriptions in her multifaceted approach) and Dario Nardi also describe Si-doms in ways that are essentially consistent with Myers and inconsistent with Jung. Berens explains that sensing — for Se-doms and Si-doms both — "is a process of becoming aware of sensory information and often involves responding to that sensory information without any judgment or evaluation of it. ... In the Sensing process, the focus is on the actual experience, the facts and the data."

    Here's an "ISTJ snapshot" from Berens and Nardi: "Theme is planning and monitoring, ensuring predictable quality. Thorough, systematic, and careful. See discrepancies, omissions and pitfalls. Talents lie in administrating and regulating. Dependable, realistic, and sensible. Want to conserve the resources of the organization, group, family, or culture and persevere toward that goal. Thrive on planning ahead and being prepared. Like helping others through their roles as parent, supervisor, teammate, and community volunteer."

    Similarly, Naomi Quenk explains: "Introverted sensing types are careful and orderly in their attention to facts and details. They are thorough and conscientious in fulfilling their responsibilities. ... They are typically seen as well grounded in reality, trustworthy, and dedicated to preserving traditional values and time-honored institutions. With their focus on the reality of the present, they trust the evidence of their senses, and rely on carefully accumuated past and present evidence to support their conclusions and planned courses of action. ... They tend to take a skeptical, critical attitude to information that has not been verified by the senses and are likely to distrust people who are careless about facts, sloppy about details, and favor imagination and novelty over accuracy and solid substantiation."

    Again, Quenk's Si-doms are basically Myers' IS_Js. In terms of the relationship of an Si-dom to sensory data and reality in general, Quenk's conception of introverted sensation — like Myers' and Thomson's and Berens' and Nardi's — comes closer to resembling the opposite of Jung's Si-dom than matching Jung's conception.

    And again, as you may know, Thomson, Quenk, Berens and Nardi are the most well-known MBTI theorists whose approaches are centered more around the cognitive functions than the dichotomies. I assume it goes without saying that all the well-known authors who follow the MBTI's dichotomy-centric approach (like Keirsey and Kroeger & Thuesen) offer IS_J profiles that match Myers' IS_J descriptions far more than Jung's Si-dom description, so I'll spare you quotations from them.

    So I'd certainly agree with @brainheart that "Jung's description of Si ... is so, so different than the MBTI ones!" What's hard for me to understand is why he and @Marmotini would think it made any sense for you to be reading Jung's description.

    And by that I mean I'd find it hard to understand even if it sounded like you were an IS_J. Given that you really don't sound like an IS_J, it's even harder for me to understand.

    Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them. If Jung was still around and became aware that, 90 years after Psychological Types was published, somebody was ignoring all the improvements that had been made to his original ideas by Myers and others and was trying to type themselves based on the function descriptions in Psychological Types, I really don't think he'd approve.

    Anyway... in my earlier post, I pointed you to a couple of tests, and you took the first one (the official MBTI) and came out INFP, as I'd expected (with F being the only borderline score), but it looks like you haven't (yet, at least) taken the second test — which, as I explained, will both score you on the Big Five dimension that doesn't have a corresponding MBTI dimension and also offer a potentially useful "second opinion" on your MBTI preferences.

    Feel free to ignore me but, if you'd potentially be interested in taking the Big Five test and posting your results, I'd be more than happy to continue giving you type input — particularly on your T/F preference (if it turns out that's the one that the most uncertain).

    thank you for the long response, i made the big five test


    Extroversion |||| 18%
    Orderliness |||||||||||||||| 70%
    Emotional Stability |||||| 26%
    Accommodation |||||||||| 34%
    Inquisitiveness |||||||||||||||| 64%


    When I discovered MBTI i always thought about me being a thinker but i thought that couldnt be because im so sensitive. and i dont know maybe thats all random now but i can remember, when i was a child i were really helpful and nice and i behaved more extroverted. and it changed when i was 12 or something because i was emotionally hurt so badly by my father that i completely shut down and i became unsure of myself and shy as fuck. and i really became cold and always kept my distance. Maybe what I could mention is that i was in therapy because of depression and there i got told that im probably a thinker. but is it possible to be a sweet, warm and friendly kid who is a thinker as a teenager? i just mention my childhood so often because thats what i can really remember, now im just a little bit messed up and i soemtimes cant really tell what i am like, altough i often have this feelinng of writing completely unordered stuff and everyones just like "youre so organised and youre writing very well"

    maybe thats all just useless rambling that no one can understand, im so sorry

  10. #60
    Senior Member reckful's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    559

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lume View Post
    I got INFP on this one,
    E 1 / I 20
    S 6 / N 20
    T 11 / F 13
    J 7 / P 15
    Quote Originally Posted by lume View Post
    i made the big five test

    Extroversion |||| 18%
    Orderliness |||||||||||||||| 70%
    Emotional Stability |||||| 26%
    Accommodation |||||||||| 34%
    Inquisitiveness |||||||||||||||| 64%
    I'm involved in a few too many type-me threads at the moment (not just at TC), but I'll be back to this one at some point in the near future.

    Just quickly for the moment: You scored INFP on the official MBTI, with T/F being the only score that was really borderline. Your Big Five score corresponds to Limbic (strongly Limbic) INTJ, but I'm still leaning INF for you.

    I'm more in-the-middle on J/P than I originally was, though. I'd pick INFP and INFJ as the two likeliest candidates.

    And I haven't ruled out T, but I've often noted that I think it's not uncommon for INFs (male and female both) to test as INTs, at least partly because many of the F choices on typical MBTI tests (including the official test) are choices that are more likely to appeal to SFs and EFs than INFs — and I think that's probably more true of female INFs than male INFs. I think male F's are often aware that they differ from cultural male stereotypes in ways that make them more "F-ish" than average whereas, by contrast, I think INF women (and maybe especially INFJ women) who compare themselves to cultural female stereotypes (not to mention the majority of actual women) are reasonably likely to think of themselves as more T-ish than those "feeler" women (EFs, SFs and, especially, ESFs). So, against that background, I'm inclined to see your F score on the official MBTI — combined with your general sense that F fits you better — as a pretty good F indicator.

    I don't think you're an INTJ, so... if you're a T, that would lean me more to the P side, and if you're a J, that would increase my lean to the F side. So my third-most-likely choice for you at this point would be INTP.

    I put online profile roundups for the four IF types in my first post in the thread, and the next spoiler has INTP and INTJ roundups, just in case you want to look at those.



    As I said in that first post, one possible way to give prospective type-me contributors more information to go on is to read through some profiles of the two (or three) types you consider the most likely and post about anything in them that provokes a notably strong "that's me" or "that's not me" reaction.

    Finally (for now), if you're interested in quite a lot of input from me on J/P, you'll find it in the spoiler in this post.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-23-2017, 09:54 PM
  2. Confused about my type
    By arth96 in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 05-30-2017, 02:00 PM
  3. So confused about my type, HELP ME
    By kathleen in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-20-2016, 10:13 AM
  4. confused about my type
    By garbagelid in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-04-2014, 05:35 PM
  5. I'm Confused about my Type
    By nickia in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-12-2009, 03:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO